General / Off-Topic Recycle or Die! (the elite environmental thread)

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
That's exactly the sort of misrepresentation I was referring to.

The drafters of the New Green Deal do not think we are 'doomed' in the sense you imply. They think, with good reason, that we have maybe a dozen years to to act to limit global average temperature rise to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels and thus avoid some of the more negative impacts of climate change.

It's hard to take your arguments seriously if you cannot even attack an actual position. Stop watching media circuses, read the Green New Deal proposal, then argue against that.

Here's the text: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/109/text

If you're attacking the first half, you're not going to get much traction, because you'd be wrong. Whole lot of holes in “Green New Deal mobilization” though...
Your smug condescension is well noted, CMDR. Also, your partisan reconstituting of the facts. Yes, putting a timer on it isn't meant to imply doom at all lolol. Finally: I don't give a flying eff whether you don't take me seriously or not. I certainly don't take you seriously on much of anything, so fair is fair I suppose.

@Gregg Rulz ok of course.
 
Last edited:
Your smug condescension is well noted, CMDR.
Stop calling me CMDR. This isn't Elite, and I don't actually command a spaceship.

Also, your partisan reconstituting of the facts.
I haven't changed or misrepresented any facts and your perceptions of partisanship are a reactionary delusion on your part.

Yes, putting a timer on it isn't meant to imply doom at all lolol.
It's not. A sense of urgency, sure, but the implication of doom isn't in the proposal.

Finally: I don't give a flying eff whether you don't take me seriously or not. I certainly don't take you seriously on much of anything, so fair is fair I suppose.
I wasn't talking about me.

You don't need to be concerned with how I perceive you. I am not active in any political or media circles. I am not a voter. I do not set policy. I do not have any say in policy.

I was pointing out that those that do have a say, and the voting public at large, will not find your your arguments, which mostly seem to be a mix of baseless paranoia, ignorance, and prejudice, to be particularly convincing. Not everything they find convincing is sound and not every one of your opinions is unfounded, but your willful misinterpretation of the positions you appear to be against is going to help push opinions, and policy, in that very direction.
 
Stop calling me CMDR. This isn't Elite, and I don't actually command a spaceship.



I haven't changed or misrepresented any facts and your perceptions of partisanship are a reactionary delusion on your part.



It's not. A sense of urgency, sure, but the implication of doom isn't in the proposal.



I wasn't talking about me.

You don't need to be concerned with how I perceive you. I am not active in any political or media circles. I am not a voter. I do not set policy. I do not have any say in policy.

I was pointing out that those that do have a say, and the voting public at large, will not find your your arguments, which mostly seem to be a mix of baseless paranoia, ignorance, and prejudice, to be particularly convincing. Not everything they find convincing is sound and not every one of your opinions is unfounded, but your willful misinterpretation of the positions you appear to be against is going to help push opinions, and policy, in that very direction.
Sorry about all those "CMDR's" buddy. If you don't like how I address you, feel free to quit engaging me.

Yes, doom is implicit in those statements

As to your last point; the lunatic over reaction and bizarrely harmful policy prescriptions in the making could be said to be doing the same.

@Gregg Rulz ok , strawman? Ok, you've lost me. What was your point?

Edit: nevermind, you were just being a smart alleck, I get it now:)
 
No, I discuss the things you guys say, but interject my own counterpoints which you fail to grasp which is a completely different thing.
I certainly don't say the world is going to end yet you argue against some things I say based on that statement, and I do not grasp your counterpoints because they are wrong, disingenous or irrelevant.
 
Yes, doom is implicit in those statements
Well, I read the whole thing and I'm not feeling particularly doomed, either from anything in the proposal, or your reaction to it.

The information used as a basis for their position is largely accurate and well supported, rather than exaggerated portents of doom. Their stated goals are generally laudable, but varying degrees of impractical, especially with regard to the timeline, while the means for attaining those goals are left quite vague.

I suspect they are quite consciously asking for more than they expect to get, so they don't have to compromise too far to get something workable. The devil will be in the details we don't yet have, but it's hard to imagine that they'll ultimately amount to economic disaster, or even wind up costing more in the long run than doing nothing. Of course, it would be prudent for anyone with a vested interest in the outcome to make sure their interests are represented, which will be difficult to do without understanding what's going on and where this stuff is coming from.

As to your last point; the lunatic over reaction and bizarrely harmful policy prescriptions in the making could be said to be doing the same.
Doing the same what? Driving people toward, or away from, supporting their forthcoming legislation?

No, I discuss the things you guys say, but interject my own counterpoints which you fail to grasp which is a completely different thing.
Many of your counterpoints are directed at points that no one was trying to make...which makes them tangents, at best, rather than counterpoints.
 
I didn't take Mad Mike's statement about the "air getting so bad that we can barely breathe" to be a reference to CO2 (as that would be silly), but I could be mistaken.
indeed.... i am mostly out of this thread now as i have said my bit and no point me going round in circles.... however just to be clear on this point as an athsmatic I have experienced what the air can be like on certain days in the uk, and i have read - though not experienced, that compared to london - as an example - some places are far worse...

however that said, some in this thread will belive this is nothing to do with us and is just either my imagination, or some other cause unrelated to our pollution (or maybe i am flat out lying) either way, i have my views, other folk have theirs.
 
Last edited:
Well, I read the whole thing and I'm not feeling particularly doomed, either from anything in the proposal, or your reaction to it.

The information used as a basis for their position is largely accurate and well supported, rather than exaggerated portents of doom. Their stated goals are generally laudable, but varying degrees of impractical, especially with regard to the timeline, while the means for attaining those goals are left quite vague.

I suspect they are quite consciously asking for more than they expect to get, so they don't have to compromise too far to get something workable. The devil will be in the details we don't yet have, but it's hard to imagine that they'll ultimately amount to economic disaster, or even wind up costing more in the long run than doing nothing. Of course, it would be prudent for anyone with a vested interest in the outcome to make sure their interests are represented, which will be difficult to do without understanding what's going on and where this stuff is coming from.



Doing the same what? Driving people toward, or away from, supporting their forthcoming legislation?



Many of your counterpoints are directed at points that no one was trying to make...which makes them tangents, at best, rather than counterpoints.
I'll sum up my rebuttal to your first point regarding the GND: it's sheer insanity, and yes, when you put a timeline of x amount of years to turn the boat around before it reaches a tipping point, you are indeed forecasting doom. Spin it however you like in your head, the plan is so ludicrous it couldn't get any traction in the House because nobody permanently wants their name attached to it.

Speaking to driving people away" when left wing loons or sjw's or assorted activists promote that the world is going to be unsaveable in the next twelve years or less, or that Montana is a toxic wasteland or that people who eat hamburgers are the reason the planet is dying, plenty of folks take one look at that extremism, shake their heads and walk away in the opposite direction. In short, to people such as myself, almost every environmental activist out their are so crackpot crazy and snake in the grass mean that there's no way in Hell we're ever going to agree with you on jack poopoo. In short, you guys are preaching to the choir, but in the process driving reasonable people who happen to be skeptical further and further away.
 
I'll sum up my rebuttal to your first point regarding the GND: it's sheer insanity, and yes, when you put a timeline of x amount of years to turn the boat around before it reaches a tipping point, you are indeed forecasting doom. Spin it however you like in your head, the plan is so ludicrous it couldn't get any traction in the House because nobody permanently wants their name attached to it.
You are asserting it is the tipping point before doom, in reality it's just a goal to avoid more severe consecuences and the initialization of feedback loop phenomena.
 
The aforementioned IPCC reports also mention infectious disease.
I read the articles - all are in the context of locations with increased rainfall. I completely agree that in those areas, mosquito vectored diseases will spread. Mosquito born diseases are also spreading due to evolutionary adaptations in the mosquitos themselves. In areas projected to have increased temperatures with decreased rainfall, we will not see an increase in mosquito vector diseases.

With respect to the rate. Are you suggesting that the current rate of carbon addition by humans will continue without restriction (even without carbon taxes on peanutbutter sandwiches)? Of course it will not.

As populations industrialize, inflection points occur with birth rates and the need for the dirtiest energy producing fuels. During this time progression efficiency and cleaner energy technologies will develop, and replace older dirtier technologies. The atmosphere is going to get a whole lot more CO2 until central and south america, africa, india, and asia indulstrialize. That process will not be stopped. The rate will increase, but it is going to inflect.

If you extend your logic about not having children because of the terrible awful world we will leave them, then I suppose no one should have reproduced during the dark ages when things were actually bad, or the younger dryas when we had ridiculous mega fauna and human die offs. Irrespective of the current environmental circumstances, organisms that care about their line do reproduce.

And yeah - there are nutjobs that are going childless in the US to reduce their carbon footprint. I guess that's a good thing, because they will wipe themselves out.
 
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom